It's time for a new book!!!

[Mycroft]

The last one was a bit disapointing, I thought, but now it's time for a new one.

[BPSCG]

I started it a couple of days ago. Have to be careful where I read it - my train stops at the Pentagon every day...

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Have to be careful where I read it - my train stops at the Pentagon every day... :)

There are two technicalities I'd like to address up front in the hopes of preemption:

1) The author of record is Anonymous. Scheuer didn't want it this way; the CIA insisted. It's thoroughly documented in the press that Scheuer wrote the book and is who he says he is.

2) The CIA doesn't give permission for employees to share secrets hence the book is open-sourced ... clearly with a wink and a nod. I'm not suggesting that all of Scheuer's assertions are beyond challenge, but I do hope that readers bear in mind that he is a world's leading aurthority and was certainly in position to know all that was* known. And fwiw, call me a sucker, but if he has a hidden agenda I'll eat my hardback copy.

* He left the CIA several mos ago.

I will try to reign in my biases. I'm one of those weirdos who view 9/11 as a defining moment in life on multiple dimensions.

[CBL4]

This thread finally got me to start reading the book and I read chapter 1 during lunch.

This appears to be a well written book by an intelligent and informed author. From his tone, my guess is that I will agree with most of his diagnosis but disagree with much of his cure. I am probably premature to say that since he has not articulated the cure yet but he seems more pragmatic and less idealistic than me.

Does anyone have any suggestion on how to make the book club more appealing? How can we get more people involved?

CBL

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by CBL4
This thread finally got me to start reading the book and I read chapter 1 during lunch.

This appears to be a well written book by an intelligent and informed author. From his tone, my guess is that I will agree with most of his diagnosis but disagree with much of his cure. I am probably premature to say that since he has not articulated the cure yet but he seems more pragmatic and less idealistic than me.I'm well into chapter 2, and that's my impression, too. I keep thinking, "That makes sense," and "I didn't know that," and then wondering, "Okay, what should we have done?"
Does anyone have any suggestion on how to make the book club more appealing? How can we get more people involved?

Best post of the month wins this:
http://www.regtransfers.co.uk/images/Testimonials/LU54_RDY/LU54_RDY_pic.jpg

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CBL4
Does anyone have any suggestion on how to make the book club more appealing? How can we get more people involved?

What if we made it no girls allowed and had a secret password and a hand-shake?


http://www.dustcatchers.com/shirts/tv/lr-heman.jpg

[varwoche]

I don't know how book clubs work much less a jref book club. Is there an intent for this to be different than normal threads?

Even the preface blew me away.

In my view the US became an Orwellian nightmare on 9/12. I took a shred of solace that somewhere in the US government there were people who were rational, and willing to examine all aspects of the serious and complex threat posed by the islamic jihad movement.

All aspects includes misguided US foriegn policy, oil consumption, and world poverty.

At the same time, it is only rational to understand the magnitude of the threat. In my view it is more severe than the administration portrays and warrants a determined (and complex) state of war.

Tragically there was (is?) little or no constituency for these combined realities amongst politicians in power.

I am deeply appreciative to Scheuer and to the unnamed ladies for their apparent rationality at a time when the country had gone mad, and for their dedication. I only wish they had been listened to, especially pertaining to Iraq.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
What if we made it no girls allowed and had a secret password and a hand-shake?


http://www.dustcatchers.com/shirts/tv/lr-heman.jpg

Maybe if you weren't such a dishonest, deceptive, lying bully.



I'm extending a personal invitation to you to join this endeavor. Precisely because we disagree in almost every possible way, I believe your presence in both dialogue and in contributions of reading material will greatly enhance the educational value of this experience.

In all sincerity, I want you to join us.

From Mycroft
Illuminator





If I do say what i do, I am accused of being an anti-semite, a subtle one at that.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by varwoche

1) The author of record is Anonymous. Scheuer didn't want it this way; the CIA insisted. It's thoroughly documented in the press that Scheuer wrote the book and is who he says he is.


FYI, his name is under Anonymous on the new paperback edition. I meant to pick it up while I was traveling through NYC this past week but business got busy.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

If I do say what i do, I am accused of being an anti-semite, a subtle one at that.

The invitation to participate was sincere, It's too bad you haven't yet chosen to participate. If you do, you will be welcome.

I'm sorry, but I can't promise that participation will change my opinion of you. That was created by reading your words for almost two years now. If you wish me to have a different opinion of you, you will have to make an effort to present yourself in a different way, or to re-evaluate some of your core beliefsl. If you choose not to do that, you will have to accept that I have an opinion of your that you don't like.

If it makes you feel more comfortable about participating, understand that none of the books discussed so far nor any of the books on the list are of subject that are likely to touch upon those aspects of your personality that I find most repelling.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The invitation to participate was sincere, It's too bad you haven't yet chosen to participate. If you do, you will be welcome.

I'm sorry, but I can't promise that participation will change my opinion of you. That was created by reading your words for almost two years now. If you wish me to have a different opinion of you, you will have to make an effort to present yourself in a different way, or to re-evaluate some of your core beliefsl. If you choose not to do that, you will have to accept that I have an opinion of your that you don't like.

If it makes you feel more comfortable about participating, understand that none of the books discussed so far nor any of the books on the list are of subject that are likely to touch upon those aspects of your personality that I find most repelling.

And **** you too, Mycroft, you are a self confessed dishonest debater.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And **** you too, Mycroft, you are a self confessed dishonest debater.

Give it up A_U_P. I got the same "sincere" invitation form letter, guess he must have a lot of people that find him obnoxious if he needs a form letter to invite them....You would be far better off simply leaving him alone to work out for himself why his bookclub has turned out the way it has......

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The invitation to participate was sincere, It's too bad you haven't yet chosen to participate. If you do, you will be welcome.

I'm sorry, but I can't promise that participation will change my opinion of you. That was created by reading your words for almost two years now. If you wish me to have a different opinion of you, you will have to make an effort to present yourself in a different way, or to re-evaluate some of your core beliefsl. If you choose not to do that, you will have to accept that I have an opinion of your that you don't like.

If it makes you feel more comfortable about participating, understand that none of the books discussed so far nor any of the books on the list are of subject that are likely to touch upon those aspects of your personality that I find most repelling.

Dishonesty, again.

Here is your response to my statement of a common aphorism on democracy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's usually the way, though. Oppositions don't get voted in, governments get voted out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You really are fond of substituting conjecture for fact, arn't you?



Nothing to do with Israel, Zionism or Jews, and a simple observation on democracy by myself is reason for another bully boy attack from you.

You are dishonest.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I'm well into chapter 2, and that's my impression, too. I keep thinking, "That makes sense," and "I didn't know that," and then wondering, "Okay, what should we have done?"
[B]

Best post of the month wins this:
http://www.regtransfers.co.uk/images/Testimonials/LU54_RDY/LU54_RDY_pic.jpg

The girl or the car?

ETA: Well, I see you just got more people participating...

[CBL4]

I notice no one is posting on the book yet. Are you sharing my opinion?

Great start but then it turns into a diatribe. There are some interesting ideas in the book but they are surrounded by relentless pounding of his POV. I think there is merit to his ideas but the way it is presented makes me want to disagree with him.

The thing that is getting to me is he frequent "the brilliant historian/author" is too stupid to understand the reality of the situation. If all these brilliant people disagree with Scheuer, does this give you pause about his correctness? It certainly does not seem to slow him down and sometimes it as a method to "prove" his contention.

The last chapter apparently has his proposed solution. Perhaps this will be different. I am almost there.

CBL

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CBL4
I notice no one is posting on the book yet. Are you sharing my opinion?


I have a personal confession...

Back in early May, I took this book with me on vacation with the idea of reading ahead on the bookclub list, but I only read about two pages. When we got back, I misplaced the book, which is unfortunate since it was a library book and now the fine is greater than the replacement value of the book.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by CBL4
The last chapter apparently has his proposed solution. Perhaps this will be different. I am almost there. The last chapter leaves me short -- it's awfully vague.

The status of affairs in both Iraq and Afghanistan do little to counter Scheuer's assessment that both are prescriptions for failure, imo.

[CBL4]

The last chapter leaves me short -- it's awfully vagueNow I have nothing to look forward to. At least I won't be disappointed when I get there.

CBL

[Skeptic]

If I do say what i do, I am accused of being an anti-semite, a subtle one at that.

Nobody accused you of being subtle. But just because you're an antisemite is no reason not to engage in a literary debate, is it? I mean, even Hitler wrote a book or two.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by varwoche
The last chapter leaves me short -- it's awfully vague.

The status of affairs in both Iraq and Afghanistan do little to counter Scheuer's assessment that both are prescriptions for failure, imo. Incidentally, despite that I found the last chapter hugely dissappointing, the fact that he doesn't bandy about solutions synchs (unfortunately) with his grim assessment expressed throughout the book.

I understand his take on Iraq (huge mistake) and on Afghanistan (misguided; too dainty). I would like to see more specific prescriptions for action, and how it is these actions would be less offensive to the islamic world than than the actions he criticizes.

Is this a fair summarization of his position...?

US foriegn policy as relating to the Islamic world has been misguided, and there is no hope in sight that the core issues will be addressed by political leadership. As a result, the only option is large scale military force. Whatever military efforts the US takes must be taken with far greater force than Iraq and Afghanistan. And if we fail, future attacks will make the events in London, Madrid, and New York look like child's play.

[CBL4]

Originally posted by varwoche
US foriegn policy as relating to the Islamic world has been misguided, and there is no hope in sight that the core issues will be addressed by political leadership. As a result, the only option is large scale military force. Whatever military efforts the US takes must be taken with far greater force than Iraq and Afghanistan. And if we fail, future attacks will make the events in London, Madrid, and New York look like child's playHe would agree with everything you said but you did not mention some of his main points. (It is likely you did this for brevity but I think they are essential points.)

1) The current political leadership has no idea what OBL is about and until they understand that, they have no hope of choosing the right course.
2) The current political leadership does not understand the warlords and religious leaders in Afghanistan or Iraq.
3) The US army is so scared of casulties that it is incompentent.
4) OBL is a brillaint, charismatic, sincere, religious, sane, thoughtful (and evil) man who understand the Islamic religion and region so well that he can make mass murderers into heros.
5) OBL and many Muslims view the west as modern crusaders who are invading the Islamic world.

CBL

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by CBL4
1) The current political leadership has no idea what OBL is about and until they understand that, they have no hope of choosing the right course.
2) The current political leadership does not understand the warlords and religious leaders in Afghanistan or Iraq.
3) The US army is so scared of casulties that it is incompentent.
4) OBL is a brillaint, charismatic, sincere, religious, sane, thoughtful (and evil) man who understand the Islamic religion and region so well that he can make mass murderers into heros.
5) OBL and many Muslims view the west as modern crusaders who are invading the Islamic world.I got about 2/3 through it and then my non-JREF personal and professional lives both came pounding at my door about a month ago (which also explains why I haven't posted anything recently - apologies to my legions of fans...).

Anyway, yeah, I get the same main points from the book, except for #3 above, which I suppose may be somewhere in the last third that I haven't gotten a chance to read.

I think he makes a very strong case for the "They hate us because we're mean to them" school; he explains very clearly how bin Laden's stated plans are congruent with his actions.

But as strong as his arguments are, I can't shake the nagging feeling that he's simply wrong. As Victor Davis Hanson points out,
Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade.

Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden declared war on America in 1998, citing the U.N. embargo of Iraq and troops in Saudi Arabia; when those were no longer issues, he did not cease, but continued his murdering. He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy and felt empowered by years of appeasement after a series of attacks on our embassies, bases, ships, and buildings, both here and abroad. Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507150804.asp)

I saw Scheuer on (I think) Frontline) a few weeks ago and heard many of the same arguments he puts forth in the book. I waited eagerly to hear what he had to say about dealing with terrorists, but it appears that if he had anything to say, it ended up on the cutting room floor. Too bad. I think he's got important things to say - I've certainly learned a lot from his book - but it sounds like he doesn't have a strategy for winning the war.

Separately...
AUP, Fool, why don't you just read the goddam book and tell us what you think instead of getting into your usual pissing matches with Mycroft? Varwoche is here, and in many ways he isn't that far to the right of you guys ("...the US became an Orwellian nightmare on 9/12..." Are you serious, V? I mean, really, are you really freakin' serious?) but you don't see anyone here getting into personalities with him. Might have something to do with the fact that he doesn't call people racists and fascists at the drop of a hat.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Varwoche is here, and in many ways he isn't that far to the right of you guys ("...the US became an Orwellian nightmare on 9/12..." Are you serious, V? I mean, really, are you really freakin' serious?)
Clearly the difference between the world described in 1984 and the US is vast. It's a rhetorical statement. Even so, it does reflect my view that something deeply and profoundly disturbing occured, in terms of non-organized suppression of rational thought -- something of a national hysteria.

Add a teensy weensy point ... the (apparently) orchestrated campaign of deception to connect Saddam to 911.

I am hard-pressed to name anything the leaders of this country have done in my sentient lifetime (I'm not young) that is this deceptive, this immoral, and this betraying of public trust.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by varwoche
Clearly the difference between the world described in 1984 and the US is vast. It's a rhetorical statement. Then why do you make the odious comparison? It's the rhetorical equivalent of "Bush is Hitler," and it does nothing to advance the discussion.
Even so, it does reflect my view that something deeply and profoundly disturbing occured, in terms of non-organized suppression of rational thought -- something of a national hysteria.Whose rational thought is being suppressed? It seems to me that ever since September 11, people have been more engaged in discussion of the world we live in, not less. Do you know of anyone who has been jailed for expressing his opinions?

Your claim reminds me of something Mrs. BPSCG alleged in one of our pointless (because neither ever gets persuaded) arguments about the WoT. She claimed that, ever since September 11, people are being "ostracized" (her word) for disapproving of the current administration's policies. I challenged her to name one person she knew who'd been "ostracized." Well, she couldn't, but she knew it was true, anyway. Whereupon I told her I did know of someone who'd been ostracized because of his political beliefs: me. A longtime friend cut me off, told me to never write to him again because I took issue with his far-left email diatribes (diatribes he always initiated and I tried to avoid getting caught up in).

So again, name me one person who's had his rational thought suppressed.
Add a teensy weensy point ... the (apparently) orchestrated campaign of deception to connect Saddam to 911.No, it's the orchestrated campaign of deception to make people believe Bush tried to implicate Saddam in September 11. It works like this:

"Bush says Saddam is a terrorist. Bush says Saddam aids, abets, funds, and shelters Muslim terrorists. Bush says bin Laden is a Muslim terrorist. Bush says Muslim terrorist bin Laden planned September 11. Therefore, Bush says Saddam helped Muslim terrorist bin Laden plan September 11. We know that's not true. Therefore Bush is a liar. Therefore everything Bush says is a lie. Bush = Hitler. QED."

When the 9/11 commission stated - and note the careful wording - that they'd found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States", the New York Times responded with the headline, "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie," which is not at all the same thing. But do you think the the huddled masses eager to get back to Scott and Laci Peterson noticed how the Times twisted what the commission said, so it could claim Bush lied?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Then why do you make the odious comparison? It's the rhetorical equivalent of "Bush is Hitler," and it does nothing to advance the discussion. I don't have the same sense about the words "Orwellian nightmare" as you do, which is not to imply that I'm right.

I would never say Bush is Hitler and have no respect for that use of language. It pisses me off in fact, becasue it portrays Bush opposition as mindless, blathering partisanship, and on general principle of language abuse.

I feel this way for the same reason I imagine others might feel this way: The name Hitler is very, very special. (Note: I save double "very's" for special circumstances.) More so than Stalin; more so than Mao; more so than Saddam; more so than Pol Pot.

And it's not just body count. It's more than that.

So when you equate "Orwellian nightmare" with "Bush = Hitler", from my perspective you have committed the same type of odious language abuse that you feel I have, except worse.

(FYI I'm not saying this to be snarky, nor am I offended, nor do I write this with any desire to offend you.)

Tangentially, this is partly why I posed the question about the book club threads versus normal threads. I consider the milieu where the terms are used as part of the overall language equation. I took some liberty because we are in a "book club". I should disclose however, in the spirit of "staying ahead of the facts", that I have used "Orwellian nightmare" in normal* political threads.

Part of our disconnect may be because we view the Saddam+911 marketing campaign differently. "Odious" doesn't come remotely close to describing my take on it. It seems Orwellian to me, and it seems nightmarish to me.

* oxymoron?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by varwoche
So when you equate "Orwellian nightmare" with "Bush = Hitler", from my perspective you have committed the same type of odious language abuse that you feel I have, except worse.What would you find a more terrifying prospect: the idea of another Hitler, or the idea of Orwell's Big Brother?

Remember the scene in 1984 when O'Brien is torturing Winston. He observes that Stalin and Hitler were on the right track, but they were doomed to eventual defeat because they couldn't change what people thought. The autocrats of old said, "Thou shalt"; the totalitarian dictators said "Thou shalt not." We say, "Thou art" (close to the original quote, but I don't feel like digging the book out). He tells Winston that he's deluded if he thinks posterity will vindicate him; posterity will never even know he existed. The whole last quarter of the book - the torture scenes - is really an explanation for how the Party can never be overthrown. And the reader, who wants to find a way for Winston to win in the end, and for human freedom to re-emerge, finds himself instead despairing that, at least in this dystopia, there is truly no way out. He realizes that O'Brien is quite correct when he says that if Winston wants to imagine the future, he should simply imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forever.

All this is by way of saying, I consider this to be more horrifying than even Hitler. And when someone makes odious comparisons of the U.S. government to Orwell, I have to fight down an urge to scream at the speaker, "You #$%^ing imbecile!!! Have someone actually read the book to you before you make an idiotic claim like that!!!" Part of our disconnect may be because we view the Saddam+911 marketing campaign differently. "Odious" doesn't come remotely close to describing my take on it. It seems Orwellian to me, and it seems nightmarish to me.Are you talking about the left's attempt to make the world believe that Bush ever claimed that Saddam was in on the September 11 plotting?

[varwoche]

You are equating fictional characters with Adolph Hitler. This impresses me as even more egregious language abuse.

It comes down to the way that people think and feel about these words, not a factual analysis of the evil behavior. (If there's such a thing as factual analysis of a fictional character that is.)

What about Lex Luthor (Superman's nemesis)? He did evil things. Yet I wouldn't be highly offended if someone called me Lex Luthor.

On the other hand, suppose there were a fictional anti-semite named Adolph Bitler -- he's an inconsequential SOB who never caused anyone any physical harm.

Using "fact-based" analysis, 1984's O'Brien is far more evil than Adolph Bitler. Cleary though, Bitler's name evokes Hitler and would be far more insulting.

We're back to the special meaning of words.

This is testable, though it's not a test I would want to perform. We could go sign up at another forum and start calling people "Hitler" and "1984 Dictator" and gauge the reactions.

I acknowledge your points about Saddam+911 but am going to pass for now.

(The precise reason I asked about Book Club protocol was to get a sense if this was a debate format or maybe more like my wife's warm-fuzzy book club where they drink chardonnay and share opinions in a casual way. I assumed something in between.)

I enjoy discussing semantics; sorry for the thread drift.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by varwoche
You are equating fictional characters with Adolph Hitler. This impresses me as even more egregious language abuse. You're being disingenuous. Who was it who wrote:In my view the US became an Orwellian nightmare on 9/12.You are equating a fictional society with the United States.
It comes down to the way that people think and feel about these words, Correct. And you used the term "Orwellian nightmare" because you knew it would elicit a visceral reaction from people. "Orwellian" is a shorthand way of saying "repressively brutal beyond the wildest dreams of even Hitler and Stalin." If you think the current atmosphere in the U.S. is repressively brutal beyond the wildest dreams of even Hitler and Stalin, why don't you just come out and say so?

And if you don't think so, then exactly what point were you trying to make with the "Orwellian nightmare" metaphor?
What about Lex Luthor (Superman's nemesis)? He did evil things. Yet I wouldn't be highly offended if someone called me Lex Luthor.So why didn't you equate the U.S. with a "Lex Luthorian nightmare"?

If you want to call the U.S. a vicious dictatorship, then do it. Don't dance around what you want to say.

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
From an essay I had to read in college. Check out the author here. (http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
you used the term "Orwellian nightmare" because you knew it would elicit a visceral reaction from people. Is this the place where I'm supposed to ask you how it is that you are a mind-reader?

Points noted. (It was either this or an off-topic novella.)

[CBL4]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Correct. And you used the term "Orwellian nightmare" because you knew it would elicit a visceral reaction from people. "Orwellian" is a shorthand way of saying "repressively brutal beyond the wildest dreams of even Hitler and Stalin." First of all, "Orwellian" does not necessarily mean "1984." It could mean "Animal Farm" for example. Even when it does mean 1984, it frequently (generally?) refers to the propaganda aspect of the novel.

The term "Orwellian" usually refers to one or more of the following:
1) Manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings.
2) Invasion by the state of personal privacy, whether physical or by means of surveillance.
3) The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother" society.
4) The disintegration of the family by the state
5) The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner
6) Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

All of these are pretty awful but when you mention Hitler or Nazi, your mind immediately goes to the death camps. There is no comparison in the emotional nature of the response.

When I hear the term Orwellian it is the double speak and surveillance that I think of. Bush exhibits these to a degree that makes me extremely uncomfortable. I would have no objection to a statement like "Bush is leading the country onto an Orwellian path." When anybody in the world today is compared Hitler, I always raise an objection.

CBL

[varwoche]

Within my framework of dealing with other human beings -- right, wrong, or indifferent -- it is an affront to presuppose the inner-workings of another person's brain without asking clarifying questions. (And those should be honest questions, reflecting a desire for information.)

Even in Book Club.

(It's not something I make a big deal about, because otherwise I'd always be making a big deal, because it happens all of the time. I'm not even making a big deal here, in 'that' sense at least.)

Incidentally, I loved the movie Being John Malkovich. I'm sharing this tidbit because, well, it's Book Club.

I assumed (and still assume), lacking rules or even guidelines, I can take liberties here that I wouldn't normally take.

I didn't presuppose, however, that other members were approaching book club in the same way I was approaching it. That's why I titled my post OPINION, amongst other devices, to convey the different mode I was in.

Even still, I didn't take this as license to spew. This is a skeptical forum after all, right? So when you pointed out my over-heated rhetoric, I owned up to it. The language I used to own up maybe wasn't as clear as you would have liked BPSCG. This reflects the fact that I do not consider "Orwellian Nightmare" to be an egregious use of rhetoric, whereas you apparently do.

On the other hand, I apparently find the evocation of Hitler as a more egregious use of rhetoric than you do.

Leading to a (leading, wise-ass) question:

BPSCG, is the reason you haven't owned up to your language abuse (and mind reading attempts) possibly because you have interpreted Book Club even more liberally than me?
-------------
If there weren't some reasonable conservatives (oxymoron? ;)) on this forum, like you BPSCG, it would be less interesting to me and less enlightening to me. I often pay attention to your posts and have learned from them. Thank you.

add: "over heated rhetoric" was a poor choice of words. I acknowledge using rhetoric, and I acknowledge vast factual differences between 1984 and the USA.

[BPSCG]

Okay, finally finished it today (I skipped a few dozen pages to get to the last chapters).

I agree the final chapters are a disappointment. It strikes me as being a well-argued case for, "Let's stop doing things to anger the Islamists and they'll stop trying to kill us."

It would be a reasonable argument, if it didn't fly in the face of the facts as we know them (and a lot has happened since Scheuer wrote his book). His solutions, as he states in the last few pages of the penultimate chapter, consist of: No more "unvarying military, economic, and political support for Israel..."
Following John Quincy Adams's advice that the U.S. must be "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all...[but] the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Energy independence and no more backing of corrupt, repressive, Muslim oil tyrannies.
Removal of military bases on the Arabian Peninsula.
"Does U.S. security require, and do we have the moral right, to aggressively try to install secular democratic systems in countries that give no hint of wanting them?" (This strikes me as identical to the second one above, but Scheuer lists it separately.)To address these arguments:

In the first, he elaborates that there's a difference between supporting Israel because "it's essential to our security" and supporting it out of habit, or because of its lobby and spies, or "the half-true mantra that Israel is a democracy..." and several other minor reasons. This appears to me to be a fallacy of the false dichotomy (someone more expert in rhetoric correct me if that's not the type of fallacy it really is). It's not either/or, it is for all these reasons, and then some, that we support Israel. And while the survival of Israel may not be vital to our own survival, it is vital to our being able to live in peace (doubters please read the thread on Natan Sharansky's book).

And if we give aid and support to Israel, before September 11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies.

In any case, if the U.S. were to cut off all aid to Israel, would al Qaeda/OBL call off their jihad against the west?

With all due respect to John Quincy Adams, he lived in a time when the U.S. was protected from the rest of the world by two oceans. Tyrannies across the ocean posed little or no danger to Americans. Today they do. Again, go back to Sharansky (I'd love to see a series of debates between Sharansky and Scheuer).

Yes, energy independence would be a wonderful thing. Scheuer proposes an aggressive nuclear energy program, which, frankly, I would personally support. Where does the tree-hugger contingent stand on this issue? Is national security a good enough reason to abandon their opposition to nuclear power? Is it a good enough reason to abandon their opposition to drilling in the ANWR?

And in any case, if the U.S. were to cut off all support of corrupt, repressive, Muslim oil tyrannies, would al Qaeda/OBL call off their jihad against the west? And would they try to establish democracies in the place of the oil tyrannies?

I agree that now that Saddam is gone, perhaps we don't need military bases on the Arabian Peninsula. If we removed them, would al Qaeda/OBL call off their jihad against the west?

Regarding his final point about not trying to "install secular democratic systems in countries that give no hint of wanting them", I have to say this is disingenuous. You don't know what people really want in an oppressive society. The vast majority of Iraqis gave no hint of wanting democracy until after Saddam was overthrown, because to do so would be to invite being tortured to death. But once Saddam was gone, they went out and voted, even in the face of death threats from foreign murderers in their midst. I think we can safely assume that no man wants to be a slave, no man wants to live in a system that amounts to the top dog stomping on his face with a boot.

The question for Scheuer essentially amounts to, "If we do the things al Qaeda and OBL demand, will they call off their jihad against the west?

We already have the answer, I think. Victor Davis Hanson again:
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were left alone in unassimilated European ghettoes and allowed to preach or promulgate any particular hatred of the day they wished. Conspire to kill a Salmon Rushdie, talk of liquidating the “apes and pigs,� distribute Mein Kampf and the Protocols, or plot in the cities of France and Germany to blow up the Pentagon and the World Trade Center — all that was about things “over there� and in a strange way was thought to ensure that Europe got a pass at home.

But the trump card was always triangulation against the United States. Most recently anti-Americanism was good street theater in Rome, Paris, London, and the capitals of the “good� West.

But then came Madrid — and the disturbing fact that after the shameful appeasement of its withdrawal from Iraq, further plots were hatched against Spanish justices and passenger trains.

Surely a Holland would be exempt — Holland of wide-open Amsterdam fame where anything goes and Muslim radicals could hate in peace. Then came the butchering of Theo Van Gogh and the death threats against parliamentarian Hirsi Ali — and always defiance and promises of more to come rather than apologies for their hatred.

Yet was not Britain different? After all, its capital was dubbed Londonistan for its hospitality to Muslims across the globe. Radical imams openly preached jihad against the United States to their flock as thanks for being given generous welfare subsidies from her majesty’s government. But it was the United States, not liberal Britain, that evoked such understandable hatred.

But now?Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507220816.asp)

I think, as Scheuer does, that we're in for a long, increasingly bloody war. but, as Hanson points out, "After Holland, Madrid, and London, European operatives go to Israel not to harangue Jews about the West Bank, but to receive tips about preventing suicide bombings. And the cowboy Patriot Act to now-panicked European parliaments perhaps seems not so illiberal after all."

[CBL4]

BPSCG,

I agree with your appraisal of Scheuer's conclusions. I think it is partly that it is much easier to criticize others than to come up with a good plan. It is also partly a question of being stuck in a bad situation because of past stupidity e.g. we are trapped into supporting the Saudi tyrants because we need their oil now.

So what should we do now?

I'll start by saying that I believe we should support all democracies (or near democracies) and we should rarely support tyrannies.

From this, I disagree with assessment of Israel but agree with him that we to stop supporting Islamic (and other) tyrannies. In order to do this, we need to wean ourselves from the dependency on Arab oil. Conservation (via a carbon tax), nuclear energy and research are on the top of my list.

This means I am about half in agreement with him on the solution. I am almost in total agreement with him on the cause. I think he overemphasizes the religious aspects. I think it is best recruiting tool for terrorism but it is not the root cause. The root causes are poverty, tyranny and no hope for the future. We need to help create wealthly liberal democracies in Islamic countries. Number one on this list is to allow Turkey to join the EU.

If they see that freedom works for them and that we want to aid them in getting wealth and freedom, then they will like us. Now they see us as oppressors which is not too far off the mark.

CBL

[egslim]

I'm reading the book right now, am at page 51.
Regarding his final point about not trying to "install secular democratic systems in countries that give no hint of wanting them", I have to say this is disingenuous. You don't know what people really want in an oppressive society.
While you take Iraq as an example, I think the Afghan situation is worth considering too.
We can't know what people in an oppressive society really want, but we can make a list of necessary requirements for a stable democracy to function.

I believe one of those requirements is the presence of a clear national identity. According to Scheuer Afghans are very much tribal, instead of nationalistic. That would make a self-sufficient national democratic Afghan government to Western model impossible.
Perhaps an alternative would be some sort of loose federation between the tribes. Otherwise I think a fallback to Taliban-like government is inevitable, since all Afghans do share an Islamic identity.

Another requirement is eduction, functional democracies need well-educated voters for obvious reasons. Is the Afghan population able to fulfill that role?

I think there is a very good reason for the lack of a solution presented in the book. Our first goal should be to define the problem, which is what I think Schreuer does rather well. Only then can we develop a solution. But to do so we need to define our own goals and what sacrifices we're willing to make to achieve them. Our options range from going completely isolationist to dividing each Islamic country into small dictatorships with a miniature Saddam to keep the population in check.
The trouble is that we, being democratic, are extremely unlikely to agree on what our goal should be. That makes long-term strategic policy impossible, I consider it a fundamental weakness of democracy.